Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Deardorff on April 21, 2015, 12:01:54 pm
-
Where would I find direct comparisons of images (in the field and actual use) of the Nikon D810 and whatever Canons top full frame body is now? (probably 1Dx or 5DmkIII?)
Would like to see some at ISO ratings low, medium and high. Images that show shadow detail to highlight as well as some of lighting extremes.
Nikon has a greater dynamic range at low to medium ISO settings but would like to actually see if it shows up in images.
-
I'm not seeing sample shots from the Canon posted anywhere yet in a sample database where you could directly compare the cameras on identical scenes. The Canon, not being released yet for a while, is probably still in a late test phase before the firmware is finalized.
-
have you googled 'D810 5d3 image comparison'? The sites are out there as I looked for the same not long ago .
-
Where would I find direct comparisons of images (in the field and actual use) of the Nikon D810 and whatever Canons top full frame body is now? (probably 1Dx or 5DmkIII?)
Would like to see some at ISO ratings low, medium and high. Images that show shadow detail to highlight as well as some of lighting extremes.
Nikon has a greater dynamic range at low to medium ISO settings but would like to actually see if it shows up in images.
It shows up only if the image opportunity requires it. Let's face it, most images don't require 10 stops let alone 14. As ISO goes up the DR advantage disappears. Where I find the Sony sensors have value at higher ISOs is the ability to pull cleaner shadows. Hence, you can shoot with 2-3 stops underexposure on the D810 to keep ISO lower.
Google is your friend!
Canon 5DS and 5DS R Image Samples (https://photographylife.com/canon-5ds-and-5ds-r-image-samples)
-
have you googled 'D810 5d3 image comparison'? The sites are out there as I looked for the same not long ago .
Oh, I see. I thought the OP was thinking of the 5Ds/r, for which samples are not everywhere available that are suitable for comparison.
-
Where would I find direct comparisons of images (in the field and actual use) of the Nikon D810 and whatever Canons top full frame body is now? (probably 1Dx or 5DmkIII?)
Would like to see some at ISO ratings low, medium and high. Images that show shadow detail to highlight as well as some of lighting extremes.
Nikon has a greater dynamic range at low to medium ISO settings but would like to actually see if it shows up in images.
Of course it does (show up in images). Check this out:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html
Or better not (check it out)... it just makes a grown man cry ;)
-
Of course it does (show up in images). Check this out:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html
The D810 still improves significantly on this when used at ISO64.
The APS-C D7200 is also now superior to the D800 DRwise and may in fact be one of the best options for landscape considering the extended DoF its smaller sensor provides all other things being equal. Combined with a Sigma 35mm f1.4 it may be one of the best stitching solution available. Note to myself, need to consider this seriously. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The APS-C D7200 is also now superior to the D800 DRwise and may in fact be one of the best options for landscape considering the extended DoF its smaller sensor provides all other things being equal.
Cheers,
Bernard
Why I really hope there will be a D9300 or whatever the rumor mill names it now that is supposed to have a new DX sensor in a D810 type body with 8fps. Basically a D300 replacement only 5 years late!
-
The D810 still improves significantly on this when used at ISO64.
The APS-C D7200 is also now superior to the D800 DRwise and may in fact be one of the best options for landscape considering the extended DoF its smaller sensor provides all other things being equal. Combined with a Sigma 35mm f1.4 it may be one of the best stitching solution available. Note to myself, need to consider this seriously. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
Have you compared the graphs for the D7200 and D800 on the DXOMark website?
At equal print size, the DR of the D7200 is approximately equal to that of the D800, but SNR at 18% grey is on average about one full stop worse than that of the D800, at all ISOs.
'Color sensitivity' and 'tonal range' values for the D7200 are also slightly worse than those for the D800.
However, I agree that in circumstances where specific combinations of shutter speed and DoF are critical for the desired result, for hand-held shots and/or moving subjects, then the advantage of being able to use a full stop wider aperture with the D7200, for same DoF, with consequent lower ISO at the same shutter speed, results in the D7200 having a DR advantage, and no disadvantage in respect of SNR at 18%, tonal range and color sensitivity.
Unfortunately, there will always be circumstances where the 36mp of the D800 will have a desired resolution advantage for some of us, and such circumstances will not likely be ideal for stitching multiple shots if shutter speed is a concern due to subject movement.
Nevertheless, the D7200 will have its own resolution advantages in circumstances where the crop factor increases equivalent focal length. On balance, the D7200 might be the better option, taking everything into consideration. ;)
-
I have seen the Fred Miranda tests. Am looking for D810 if possible with direct comparisons.
-
Slobodan, the comparison you posted has interpolations on the 5D3 and no interpolation on the D800 to try to normalize resolution between the 22 MP Canon and 36 MP Nikon. So the resolution part of the exam isn't really comparable.
However the shadow recovery comparison is enough to make any Canon fangirl cry :'(
I have taken to over-exposing every shot that doesn't have outright highlight clipping (Michael's ETTR) - it helps some. I would love the Sony Exmor sensor in a Canon body, because I don't like dinky cameras, they don't feel right in the hand. However, I keep thinking about getting the upcoming Sony A7r II plus adapter, primarily for tripod use, where poor ergonomics don't matter..
-
I have seen the Fred Miranda tests. Am looking for D810 if possible with direct comparisons.
The difference is even bigger, so what exactly are you trying to see and to what end!?
-
Slobodan, the comparison you posted has interpolations on the 5D3 and no interpolation on the D800 to try to normalize resolution between the 22 MP Canon and 36 MP Nikon. So the resolution part of the exam isn't really comparable.
As the article says....isn't that how real life works.
If you want to print at any size (letter, 20x18 or 6 feet across) you will use whatever the D800 gives you then you will interpolate the 5D3 (or, more exactly, interpolate it more) to get the same image. You wouldn't bin pixels fromthe D800 simply to print it. So this is a 'real life use' scenario not a theoretical one.
-
... So the resolution part of the exam isn't really comparable...
It never is, as you either have to downsample or downsample. More megapixels would always print bigger though, other things being equal.
-
I can do a practical D810 to 1DX comparison for you, but how are you defining medium and high ISO ranges?
obviously the D810 will beat the 1DX for both file resolution and the 1DX will beat the D810 at higher ISOs, firing rate, etc.
The real question is , what kind of photography are you interested in doing and how will it be reproduced?
-
I can do a practical D810 to 1DX comparison for you, but how are you defining medium and high ISO ranges?
obviously the D810 will beat the 1DX for both file resolution and the 1DX will beat the D810 at higher ISOs, firing rate, etc.
The real question is , what kind of photography are you interested in doing and how will it be reproduced?
And a $2,300 difference to spend on lenses, trips, etc.
-
How he chooses to spend his money is his business, isn't it? if he is professional, what if the abilities of the extra $2300 makes him $23,000 that the other camera wouldn't?
-
Those shadow noise comparisons are pretty striking! I have the D810 and 5D Mark II and it makes me reconsider ordering the 5DS R. I have more than 10K in Canon lenses, but perhaps they are better sold off.. It would be nice if Nikon would up their lens game a bit. Lenses like the 400/2.8 show they can match/top Canon when they choose to.
-
"It would be nice if Nikon would up their lens game a bit."
Can you be more specific as to which lenses whereyou think Nikon is weaker than Canon? Can where you thin the Nikons are weak, are those lenses yo actually use/ Granted Nikon currently doesn't a 17mm Tilt/Shift (I'd settle for Shift only), an 11-24mm zoom, or an 8-16mm fisheye zoom, but other than that I think the two companies are pretty much neck and neck across the range - with one very real exception for me: there is no current 135mm f/2 Nikkor.
-
"It would be nice if Nikon would up their lens game a bit."
Can you be more specific as to which lenses whereyou think Nikon is weaker than Canon? Can where you thin the Nikons are weak, are those lenses yo actually use/ Granted Nikon currently doesn't a 17mm Tilt/Shift (I'd settle for Shift only), an 11-24mm zoom, or an 8-16mm fisheye zoom, but other than that I think the two companies are pretty much neck and neck across the range - with one very real exception for me: there is no current 135mm f/2 Nikkor.
The 24 TSE II (I have) and the 17 TSE (I want) are the main reasons for sticking with Canon. The 70-200 II (I have) seems superior to the Nikon version. I am also very fond of my 85 1.2, although not for landscape uses. My Canon 35 1.4 seems very close to what I could get with the Sigma 35 1.4 Art which seems to have better sharpness but worse bokeh. My Canon 100L IS macro is also quite useful. The 11-24 is very interesting, a very difficult lens to use at 11mm, but I am starting to see a few people take shots at 11mm I would be proud of.
My internal debate is between getting the 5DS R, using it for situations where limited dynamic range is not an issue, versus just abandoning Canon under the rationale that two systems is not cost effective. I am already dealing with stitching, focus stacking and time blending. Adding exposure bracketing, that the Nikon would not need, does not seem like a lot of fun. Mostly my Canon gear is collecting dust as I am using the D810 14-24 and Sigma 50 Art. I do much prefer the ergonomics of the D810 to the 5D Mark II. Perhaps the 5DS R will get me using the Canon equipment again.....really don't know.
I am working towards doing a landscape gallery show and am looking to be able to print rather large.
-
there is no current 135mm f/2 Nikkor.
It's worth a brief note on the 135/2 DC Nikkor, still made. [I mention this in case someone took Ellis to say that there is no such lens.] It's a beautiful lens with amazing bokeh, my favorite portrait lens ever. But it doesn't have AF-S. There is however a patent out on a 135 f/1.8 lens design that undoubtedly does. Given the trend of new 135/2 designs (Zeiss, Samyang), perhaps Nikon will let this one out of the barn.
-
The 24 TSE II (I have) and the 17 TSE (I want) are the main reasons for sticking with Canon.
Understandable. This has been said so many times by so many people that this no way Nikon won't release soon their version of these lenses and we can be 99% sure that they'll be superior to the current Canon line up.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
I would say that interpolating to same size is a good way to compare cameras of different resolution. A better way may be to interpolate to a common resolution, say 180 PPI or 360 PPI for a given print size. The logic behind this that 360 PPI corresponds approximately to the resolution of human vision at 25 cm (10 inches), while 180 PPI corresponds to human vision at 50 cm (20 inches). Also, it seems that it is normally regarded that 180 PPI is needed for an excellent print.
There are more options to use Sony sensors than just the Sony cameras. Nikon, Pentax and others also use Sony sensor in some models.
Getting a Sony A# may be a decent idea, as it can take almost any lens. Prices on old A7-models can be quite low.
Personally, I plan to switch from Sony Alpha A-mount to Sony Alpha E-mount when Sony has a "pro" model. Zeiss now has a new 85/1.8 lens which I find highly interesting for the Sony, so I may switch earlier than expected.
Best regards
Erik
Slobodan, the comparison you posted has interpolations on the 5D3 and no interpolation on the D800 to try to normalize resolution between the 22 MP Canon and 36 MP Nikon. So the resolution part of the exam isn't really comparable.
However the shadow recovery comparison is enough to make any Canon fangirl cry :'(
I have taken to over-exposing every shot that doesn't have outright highlight clipping (Michael's ETTR) - it helps some. I would love the Sony Exmor sensor in a Canon body, because I don't like dinky cameras, they don't feel right in the hand. However, I keep thinking about getting the upcoming Sony A7r II plus adapter, primarily for tripod use, where poor ergonomics don't matter..
-
Those shadow noise comparisons are pretty striking! I have the D810 and 5D Mark II and it makes me reconsider ordering the 5DS R. I have more than 10K in Canon lenses, but perhaps they are better sold off.. It would be nice if Nikon would up their lens game a bit. Lenses like the 400/2.8 show they can match/top Canon when they choose to.
And it would be nice if Canon upped their camera game a bit. Outside the T/S lenses, it wasn't that long ago that the roles were reversed. The holy trinity (14-24, 24-70 and 70-200mm) were superior to anything Canon had at the time. Of course, now Canon has upped the lens side and Nikon the Camera side.
It is very complex to make a decision where to spend limited resources. If we look at the 24-70mm for example, the big issues would be soft outside the center wide open and chromatic aberration. But the lens was considered excellent when released and is still one of the most used lenses today. By the current standards, it is just VERY GOOD. So what is the return to update a very good lens that sells well versus some other alternative.
-
So what is the return to update a very good lens that sells well versus some other alternative.
And I think that is what is often forgotten when people complain about their favrourite functions being ignored - it is a matter of where to put the development that will yield greatest return. You could argue that Nikon have cornered the lansdcape where high ISO and shadow recovery is king, while Canon seem to reign on sports and action where a higher ISO is often used and the DR performance narrows to almost insignificance.
And, of course the lenses followsuit - Nikon's wide angle have for years been considered superior to Canon's, but the telephoto market is the other way round and this again supports the apparent bias in the bodies.
I am sure many Nikon people crave higher quality telephotos in the way many Canon owners crave the ISO performance seen with Nikon.
-
The best thing about being a canonite is that we have the best glass and the best sensors. Yes, the one inside the Sony A7 line!
;D
Eduardo
And I think that is what is often forgotten when people complain about their favrourite functions being ignored - it is a matter of where to put the development that will yield greatest return. You could argue that Nikon have cornered the lansdcape where high ISO and shadow recovery is king, while Canon seem to reign on sports and action where a higher ISO is often used and the DR performance narrows to almost insignificance.
And, of course the lenses followsuit - Nikon's wide angle have for years been considered superior to Canon's, but the telephoto market is the other way round and this again supports the apparent bias in the bodies.
I am sure many Nikon people crave higher quality telephotos in the way many Canon owners crave the ISO performance seen with Nikon.
-
I am sure many Nikon people crave higher quality telephotos in the way many Canon owners crave the ISO performance seen with Nikon.
What is interesting is the gap between perception and reality. ;)
The best available super tele is the Nikon 400mm f2.8 E FL, but even with the other ones the level of performance between Canon and Nikon is so close there is nothing to tell them apart in real world applications.
www.lenscore.org
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard you are quite keen on that one website. Very under explained and misses a lot of the points people look at about supertele's, like the canon is almost 1kilo lighter.
As for nikon high ISO, what? Its the one thing I HATE about those sensors. Nasty.
Low ISO DR is the thing.
And how long to wait for a good nikon tilt shift?
-
Bernard you are quite keen on that one website. Very under explained and misses a lot of the points people look at about supertele's, like the canon is almost 1kilo lighter.
In fact not anymore, the Nikon 400 f2.8 E FL is now a tiny bit lighter than the Canon, they basically have the same weight. Stabilization is pretty amazing both on static and dynamic subject and AF is the fastest I have ever seen on any lens. ;)
I would point at DxO if that lens had already been tested by them. But you can just refer to their data and will notice that the previous iteration of the 400mm f2.8 was already at the same level of optical quality as the Canon (but that one was indeed 800 gr heavier which is clearly a huge difference).
Totally agree that the Nikon T/S are long overdue for a replacement though. I am not saying at all that Nikon is doing a good job on lenses overall, I am very frustrated by the time it takes upgrading some of their offering.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
How he chooses to spend his money is his business, isn't it? if he is professional, what if the abilities of the extra $2300 makes him $23,000 that the other camera wouldn't?
I am surprised you suggest a camera rather than the abilities of the photographer could make such a difference.
-
I am surprised you suggest a camera rather than the abilities of the photographer could make such a difference.
I don't believe that it is what he is saying.
The importance of the photographer is an obvious fact which doesn't change the reality that not all cameras enable them the same way.
If the abilities of the camera enables the photographer to execute his vision in a way that is money generating, there is a clear ROI and buying more expensive/better performing equipment is a sensible business decision.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
I would say that interpolating to same size is a good way to compare cameras of different resolution. A better way may be to interpolate to a common resolution, say 180 PPI or 360 PPI for a given print size. The logic behind this that 360 PPI corresponds approximately to the resolution of human vision at 25 cm (10 inches), while 180 PPI corresponds to human vision at 50 cm (20 inches). Also, it seems that it is normally regarded that 180 PPI is needed for an excellent print.
Best regards
Erik
I agree, but the comparison really is output need dependent. For example, if you are shooting for a specific output size, then one needs to use that size. What may work for one, might be different for another. While my landscape and portrait work isn't really affected, my sports stuff undergoes anything from a mild to severe crop. In this case, something like an 18MP camera just wouldn't work for me no matter how good the high ISO performance is because I just don't end up with enough pixels for the output. Then the test because clean image with upsampling versus a noisier image with no resample or down sampling.
-
I don't believe that it is what he is saying.
The importance of the photographer is an obvious fact which doesn't change the reality that not all cameras enable them the same way.
If the abilities of the camera enables the photographer to execute his vision in a way that is money generating, there is a clear ROI and buying more expensive/better performing equipment is a sensible business decision.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes, I agree with you on this point that leads me to ponder what significant difference could there be between the D810 and Canon top of the line body in enabling a photographer to execute his vision in a way that is money generating.
-
there is no current 135mm f/2 Nikkor.
Stange, I have a new* 135mm f/2 DC-Nikkor, now you say it does not exist…
;D
*) OK, it a 20-year old design, but still one of the sharper Nikkors anyway, and they still make it for those who need terrific portrait glass. 105mm f/2 DC-Nikkor is even sharper. Still made also.
-
Calling Leica owners! Let's have a three-way fan (g)rumble!
I think that it is very fortunate that there are two giant and decently diversified DSLR and lens system manufacturers to keep each other working to improve. Not to mention, the non-Canikon cameras with innovations such as IBIS, sensor shift, mirrorless, grand Sony sensors, pocket-sized 4K video, etc.
Rumor is that Sony is going to announce another update to the A7x in a few weeks to a month. Take it with a giant rock of salt. A7rII with the shutter issue resolved?
-
Insider information or just something you feel in your waters?
Simple logic. I don't remember a single occurence these past 10 years where a lens released by Canon/Nikon hasn't been overall superior to the existing version of the other guy's lens.
Nowadays the Nikon wide T/S are probably the last example of lens category where the current level of performance isn't satisfactory for real world applications (not speaking about pixel peeping). There is no way Nikon could not be totally aware of this. Remember, they see themselves as a higher end brand than Canon targeting a higher level of "performance". I am not commenting on whether they are succeeding overal, but it seems clear they have the technical capability to succeed on a given lens if they consider it important.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Perhaps my memory betrays me and please forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I do seem to remember you defending the Nikon wide T/S performance, in fact singing your own example's praises on several occasions in the not too distant past.
I continue to think that my copy of the 24mm is good when tilted, I have never claimed that it was great when shifted.
But I fail to see how that this is relevant to the discussion.
There is clearly a widespread view that Canon wide T/S are vastly superior, view I agree with overall since more people seem to use these lenses shifted (or to measure their performance when shifted), and I am saying that Nikon must be aware of this and will most probably fix it soon. I don't believe they consider my own little opinion about the tilted performance of my copy as over weighting the opinion of internet. I beleve that their lens release plan is overall rationally decided based on the overall feedback they are getting and based on a factual comparison of relative performance.
This common sense and I am frankly unsure what you are arguing with. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I beleve that their lens release plan is overall rationally decided based on the overall feedback they are getting and based on a factual comparison of relative performance.
Exactly...Canon and Nikon have spent their entire careers shadowing each other. From the Nikon S to the Canon IV...from the Nikon F to the Canon F1...from the Canon EOS-1 to the Nikon F4...from the 24-70/2.8 to the 24-70/2.8 to the 24-70/2.8.
I think Bernard's bet is a pretty good one.
-
Schneider will likely stay in the lead in the T/S category, with the Canikons trailing. However, the main message I get is "modern DSLRs and lenses are amazing". We like to fuss over our current favorites, but forget what the old days were like. Old zooms - ugh. Vivitar 20mm f/3.8 - amazing in 1971, at the price, outdone by far cheaper (and smaller) lenses nowadays. I have been wanting to try some wide-angle near-macro, and dug out the old late 1960s-early 1970s manual lenses, extension tubes, and adapters. I still think that my 5 year old consumer-grade Canon 60D is an amazing camera capable of making great images, even though it is nowhere near state of the art. OK, "Pollyanna off". Back to (g)rumbling. ;)
-
We like to fuss over our current favorites, but forget what the old days were like. Old zooms - ugh. Vivitar 20mm f/3.8 - amazing in 1971, at the price, outdone by far cheaper (and smaller) lenses nowadays.
Just revisited a Nikon magazine ad from 1960, touting the new Nikkor 85-250mm f/4 zoom. Only $599! An inflation calculator puts that at $4,778.22 in 2015 dollars. For $1100, you can have a 70-200 f/4 with autofocus, having vastly better optical performance. [It would be cheaper still, but for the price of the Yen.]
-
We like to fuss over our current favorites, but forget what the old days were like.
+1, but more often than not I'd use the word "obsess" instead of "fuss". I do it too, but it's good to back up once in a while and realize that for the most part it doesn't matter. No one is going to make or lose a sale because they used a Canon, Nikon, Schneider, or Zeiss lens. In fact the person using the equipment is likely to be the only one who will ever care about this sort of thing. If it was otherwise old works made with equipment that is now substandard, like those of Galen Rowell, Jay Maisel, Jerry Uelsman, and countless others, would be worthless today.
-
Hi,
What I would suggest is that print sizes got larger. Personally I mostly print A2, sometimes larger. I would say that the digital workflow we have today may be more demanding than the analogue workflow of yore.
That said, I also find that the lenses of yore keep rather well up with today's print sizes.
Best regards
Erik
+1, but more often than not I'd use the word "obsess" instead of "fuss". I do it too, but it's good to back up once in a while and realize that for the most part it doesn't matter. No one is going to make or lose a sale because they used a Canon, Nikon, Schneider, or Zeiss lens. In fact the person using the equipment is likely to be the only one who will ever care about this sort of thing. If it was otherwise old works made with equipment that is now substandard, like those of Galen Rowell, Jay Maisel, Jerry Uelsman, and countless others, would be worthless today.
-
"It would be nice if Nikon would up their lens game a bit."
Can you be more specific as to which lenses whereyou think Nikon is weaker than Canon? Can where you thin the Nikons are weak, are those lenses yo actually use/ Granted Nikon currently doesn't a 17mm Tilt/Shift (I'd settle for Shift only), an 11-24mm zoom, or an 8-16mm fisheye zoom, but other than that I think the two companies are pretty much neck and neck across the range - with one very real exception for me: there is no current 135mm f/2 Nikkor.
Nikon's TS lenses are woeful. Otherwise: 24-70, 24, 35, probably 50, 135. The 2.8 versions of 70-200s is a wash but Nikon's turns into a 135mm at close focus. I don't shoot with 200 and up so don't know about those.
I shoot Nikon and the only Nikon brand lens I have left is the 70-200.
-
Hi,
What I would suggest is that print sizes got larger. Personally I mostly print A2, sometimes larger. I would say that the digital workflow we have today may be more demanding than the analogue workflow of yore.
That said, I also find that the lenses of yore keep rather well up with today's print sizes.
Yes, the digital workflow has made it easier and cheaper to print large and so we get a lot of large prints. Oddly enough, it also has led to less small printing. Most people don't generate the steady stream of 4x6 prints they used to get from the drugstore.
In the old days, lenses outperformed the film. Now the sensors are starting to outperform lenses in some cases. But overall, we are blessed with better overall quality.
SOME older lenses have held up well. But on average, lenses have gotten better over the years, especially at the high end and low ends. This is especially true for zooms. The original 24-120mm Nikkor sucked, but the current one is pretty good. On the side, the 3rd gen 80-200mm f/2.8 lacks AF-S (does not focus quite as fast or track as well), but is optically very good compared to the 5th gen 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII.
-
Hi,
What I would suggest is that print sizes got larger. Personally I mostly print A2, sometimes larger. I would say that the digital workflow we have today may be more demanding than the analogue workflow of yore.
That said, I also find that the lenses of yore keep rather well up with today's print sizes.
Best regards
Erik
Yes, but I'd go a step further and say the challenge has come from getting larger print sizes from smaller formats. In days of yore if you wanted larger prints you'd use larger film. For instance, Adams made incredibly sharp and detailed 30x40 inch prints in the 1960s from 8x10 inch film. They hold up well to current standards. That's amazing since in those days there was no software sharpening so sharpness could only decrease from the original in the analog printing process. Using larger formats had (and still has) some distinct advantages. For one, there is less enlargement to print at a given size so every system defect is also enlarged less. You can get away with a lot when you enlarge the image by 15 times for 8"x10" film versus 895 times to get the same area from a 24x36mm image sensor.
-
Bernard, I don't know why you would think I'm arguing with anything or anybody?
Great then, apologies for the misunderstanding.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, but I'd go a step further and say the challenge has come from getting larger print sizes from smaller formats. In days of yore if you wanted larger prints you'd use larger film. For instance, Adams made incredibly sharp and detailed 30x40 inch prints in the 1960s from 8x10 inch film. They hold up well to current standards. That's amazing since in those days there was no software sharpening so sharpness could only decrease from the original in the analog printing process. Using larger formats had (and still has) some distinct advantages. For one, there is less enlargement to print at a given size so every system defect is also enlarged less. You can get away with a lot when you enlarge the image by 15 times for 8"x10" film versus 895 times to get the same area from a 24x36mm image sensor.
You don't need software to sharpen an image. The name "unsharp mask" comes from a darkroom technique which is, in fact, the foundation of the software technique.
-
You don't need software to sharpen an image. The name "unsharp mask" comes from a darkroom technique which is, in fact, the foundation of the software technique.
It gets worse: I think some chemical developers are edge-enhancing.
Edmund
-
Hi,
See Velvia example below (from Norman Koren's site):
(http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF_Velvia.gif)
Best regards
Erik
It gets worse: I think some chemical developers are edge-enhancing.
Edmund